Clay Court GOAT

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Good list. I only miss Segura and Gimeno. I would rank Laver higher. He was almost as strong as Rosewall...

...and wipped the floor with Rosewall in the 69 final, as you painfully will remember...

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by kiki

So bad,

as I said in another thread, you still gotta come down from Evonne´s tobacco.

Once again, you fail to provide the rationale behind your recommendation.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

...and wipped the floor with Rosewall in the 69 final, as you painfully will remember...

"wipped"?

Is this similar to cleaned by whipping?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Guga
6. Vilas
7. Federer
8. Laver
9. Muster
10. Rosewall/Burguera

I am impressed, on several counts.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Going through Wilding's claycourt matches I realized that he had rather weak opponents.

But didn't Wilding do what every player does? That is play against everyone who is available for them to play. Is there a record of him ducking anyone?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

But didn't Wilding do what every player does? That is play against everyone who is available for them to play. Is there a record of him ducking anyone?

True that. Weak era or strong, one can only defeat one's actual opponents--not historical hypotheticals.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

True that. Weak era or strong, one can only defeat one's actual opponents--not historical hypotheticals.

Of course it's great that Wilding beat all he could get as opponents. Nevertheless it's yet a criterion for valueing a player's achievements if he had strong or weak opposition. I doubt that Wilding would have had such a fantastic run against stronger players like Tilden or Cochet.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Of course it's great that Wilding beat all he could get as opponents. Nevertheless it's yet a criterion for valueing a player's achievements if he had strong or weak opposition. I doubt that Wilding would have had such a fantastic run against stronger players like Tilden or Cochet.

How do you know that Tilden and Cochet are stronger than Wilding? I assume that you don't have a TARDIS or a DeLorean in your possession, so how do you know?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

How do you know that Tilden and Cochet are stronger than Wilding? I assume that you don't have a TARDIS or a DeLorean in your possession, so how do you know?

Mustard,

I must correct you: I did not compare Wilding with Tilden and Cochet. I did compare Wilding's (partly rather weak) opponents with Tilden and Cochet.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

To be open minded, first, you´ll need some experience, some criteria and some knowledge learnt by yourself, in which visual experience is basic.Then, you can choose from the options you created to yourself.Otherwise, you become a parrot or a repeating machine subject to the opinion of other high schoolers, Tennischannelist or even worse specimens

You don't watch today's tennis like people including myself from the general forum, so you don't have much knowledge. And knowledgable person doesn't necessary equate to be open minded. If you're a tennis fan rather than a fanboy(eg. kodes and laver), you can be open minded.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF,

Thanks that you call Laver and Rosewall "good players".......

Does it makes you happy if I say they are the greatest discovery since sliced bread? Or the father of modern era?

If you're craved for compliment, i can understand.

Originally Posted by pc1

I'm just stunned that he put them the top ten. Shocked!!

Because I'm open minded. Don't be shock.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Of course it's great that Wilding beat all he could get as opponents. Nevertheless it's yet a criterion for valueing a player's achievements if he had strong or weak opposition. I doubt that Wilding would have had such a fantastic run against stronger players like Tilden or Cochet.

Wilding was the antecessor of Rosewall

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

You don't watch today's tennis like people including myself from the general forum, so you don't have much knowledge. And knowledgable person doesn't necessary equate to be open minded. If you're a tennis fan rather than a fanboy(eg. kodes and laver), you can be open minded.

And you of all people acuse others of being biassed?
Heard about that who is free from guilt throw the first stone?

[kiki]

TMF is biassed EXCLUSIVELY on Fed
I, instead, have lots and lots of biass: to name a few, I am guilty of biass towards Laver,Rosewall,Tilden,Hoad,Panxho, Budge,Newk,Ashe,Jimbo,Mac,Borg,Lendl,Nasty,Kramer, Cochet,Crawford,Drobny,Sedg,Boris,Sampras,Edberg,B ruguera,Stich.....Kodes a bit less

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you're craved for compliment, i can understand.

I am craved for a compliment.

But I AM still impressed with your open-mindedness and objectivity that you would put Laver and Rosewall on your CC GOAT-list. Particularly given your espousal of the concept of tennis as continuous, ascending, evolutionary progress.

Salut to TMF!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Because I'm open minded. Don't be shock.

To be honest I'm shocked because you really haven't been open minded...in the past.

[hoodjem]

^^^Irony within ironies?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I am craved for a compliment.

But I AM still impressed with your open-mindedness and objectivity that you would put Laver and Rosewall on your CC GOAT-list. Particularly given your espousal of the concept of tennis as continuous, ascending, evolutionary progress.

Salut to TMF!

I will second that. Notice that it doesn't bother me that Federer is ahead of a lot of great players. I just wanted some reasonable choices and that's fine with me.

And I think we all are craved for compliments.

[hoodjem]

And I still think it means Triumphant Muscles Forever!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And I still think it means Triumphant Muscles Forever!

Always wondered what that stood for.

I understand now.